Online game costs too much

Oh, hey - we go head-to-head in the Redscape League tomorrow night. While I enjoy the debate, the spirit of sportsmanship overrides all here - best of luck!

Mike

I've enjoyed the debate too, Mike; you're an intelligent, honest debater. But, as much as I love debate, I, too, prefer a good SOM series, and I look forward to our series...even though most of my team is in the hospital.

Jason

It works like this. You want to sell a product for as much as possible at a price that will make you the most profit. So if your data states that if you price a product at 20.00 you will sell 100 units per month but if you sell at 10.00 you will sell 500 units a month, then you should sell at 10.00 because you will make more money taking into account of course the fixed and variable costs for do so.

If Strat-O-Matic could sell five times more teams by cutting the price in half, then you may be right. They can probably make a little more money by doing so. However, suppose their sales only doubled? Now your revenues are the same and your costs have gone significantly up. Since we don't know what would happen to sales with a 50 percent price reduction, and we don't know how much their costs would go up to support five times the number of teams, we are guessing. Since SOM knows their costs and they know how much sales went up when they lowered the price from $25 to $20 (and how many more people buy teams when they run a sale), I'm going to give them credit for having a better idea what the best price is.

To suggest they are ignorant of supply and demand is, well, ignorant!

I agree Coyote, we don't know the details of the costs involved.

Scott

Ok now that Jason has finally given a more concrete meaning to his idea of value, he is right that there are few things that give what strat does for 37 cents a day. The only thing I can think of is daily newspapers. But I can name numerous items that give what strat does for less than 37 cents a day.

Most gaming sites are free*, pokerstars**, facebook games, yahoo games. They offer better support than strat does and they give you rankings, statistics, awards, etc. at a level equal to, or better than strat. And when I go on them I spend a much longer time there than on strat (although this last point Jason negated with a good argument).

*supported by advertising rather than have the user pay

**this site has an area where you play with fake money

Scott.

I looked up poke-her-stars and they wanted like $150 an hour...hmmm

Surely you're not suggesting we can't call something a good value unless you are "comparing the price of 'A' to the prices of identical or highly substitutable products." That's silly.

Perhaps that is too restrictive but calling something a 'good value', especially when suggesting it to someone else, requires a common frame of reference. It must be a 'good value' compared to... something.

While you can't compare relative values against other online SOM games (there aren't any), you can compare this pastime to other activities that are done for fun.

That's fair. At this point I would not call SOM a good value at it's full price.

There is much here to consider...

As I will point out later below, value does always factor in objective facts and realities; there can be no expressions of (or agreements on) value without them. Also, whether or not the objective facts and realities I presented to you convince you SOM online is a "good" value does not change the fact I did reference objective facts and realities in my argument that it was. I referenced daily costs, product provided, and cost relative to similar service; these are all objective facts that made my value statement not just personal...If you need further such facts in a next post, I will provide them.

I disagree. Value is a human-based construct and is dependent on how we, either individually or collectively, determine a product's worth. Let me address the objective facts you list above: 1) Daily cost. The price of the product is an indicator of value but does not in itself contribute to value. 2) Product provided. The value of the product is entirely dependent upon how much utility we gain from the use of that product. 3) Cost relative to similar service. Aha... yes. When I spend $20 on SOM, I'm giving up the ability to buy something else for $20. I implicitly compare the value of SOM to other things I could buy for $20, i.e. SOM's opportunity cost. Value is relative.

But I must add that all value is comparative or "relative" to other values, but that does not make each entirely relative or free from objective facts. Making relative comparisons of the value of a 2013 Lamborghini Huracan to a 1976 Gremlin does not change the objective facts of the cars' respective horse powers or steering capabilities, which usually factor in such comparisons.

The value of horse power and steering capability is dependent on the utility of having such features in a car. The ability to go fast and stay in control in a Lambo only has value because we like to go fast and stay in control. I might place a greater value on the '76 Gremlin because I worship Wayne & Garth and, well... I couldn't find a Pacer.

I appreciate the initial agreement, Mike. However, both your agreement and your amendment following it directly counter your assertion in your previous post that value is "solely up to the individual." First of all, when you "assume" that others will know what you mean, you are acknowledging that there are shared objective realities outside your two perspectives that could give those perspectives commonality. Secondly, you cannot--as I showed in my Gremlin/Lamboghini comparison--compare the value of two products to each other without referencing the objective facts of (and significant to) those products.

Yes, people have shared objectives. They are often known but there aren't any guarantees. If I'm in a group of baseball fanatics who also like playing games (say, my fantasy baseball league mates), then I would, and did, propose that they give SOM a shot since I assume they will place a relatively high value on the product. I did not make that recommendation to my extended family. Shared culture, shared history, and shared interests lead to shared values. However, are you are saying that commonality of preferences amongst groups of people are objective realities? If so, I think that's a pretty thin argument to stand on and subject to the shifting sands of culture.

And dollars-per-hours-of-use is a poor temporal measure of value if used by itself. One product may provide ten times as much value in ten minutes of its product than another does in 2 hours its product. Also, many consumers prefer lengthy usage while others prefer products that can be enjoyed quickly. You have to always factor in variation in both objective realities and personal perspectives when effectively estimating and communicating value.

Point well taken. Utility is not necessarily tied to time. Furthermore, my first hour per day on SOM (watching my games & re-setting line-ups due to injury) has much greater value than any hours spent after that perusing the stats and what not.

Anyway, whether this debate continues or not, I've enjoyed it, Mike. I haven't had such an extensive, intelligent discussion of issues of value since my Marxist Theory seminar in graduate school...which was not as pleasant...

Likewise (well, except for the Marxist theory part). Debate like this also helps to keep this aging brain sharp.

As I will point out later below, value does always factor in objective facts and realities; there can be no expressions of (or agreements on) value without them. Also, whether or not the objective facts and realities I presented to you convince you SOM online is a "good" value does not change the fact I did reference objective facts and realities in my argument that it was. I referenced daily costs, product provided, and cost relative to similar service; these are all objective facts that made my value statement not just personal...If you need further such facts in a next post, I will provide them.

I disagree. Value is a human-based construct and is dependent on how we, either individually or collectively, determine a product's worth. Let me address the objective facts you list above: 1) Daily cost. The price of the product is an indicator of value but does not in itself contribute to value. 2) Product provided. The value of the product is entirely dependent upon how much utility we gain from the use of that product. 3) Cost relative to similar service. Aha... yes. When I spend $20 on SOM, I'm giving up the ability to buy something else for $20. I implicitly compare the value of SOM to other things I could buy for $20, i.e. SOM's opportunity cost. Value is relative.

The evidence you give does not support your disagreement...as it shouldn't. Of course the concept "value" is a human construct...all concepts are. But it does (as I have shown) denote worth derived from, and produced by, the objective realities of both the product and its consumers, as well as from personal perspectives. Nobody can "individually or collectively determine a products worth" without referencing objective realities of both the product and those determining its worth. If you truly believe they can, you need to show how to do so.

As to the objective realities I provided, you asked me when I had referenced objective facts in my argument and I gave you those three examples...and they all do contribute to the values of SOM. I will address each separately.

1. Cost: Price is an indicator of cost, but cost does--if not by itself--contribute to value. A cappuccino at Starbucks for 3 dollars is a better value than the exact same cappuccino at Starbuck for 5 dollars...I'm surprised that eludes you.

2. Product provided: Firstly, any product actually provided objectively exists and is thus an objective fact...unless you subscribe to subjective idealism and believe that nothing actually exists except in the mind of the perceiver. So, two fans of SOM cannot discuss the value of SOM without referring to that objectively existing product and factoring it in their assessment.

Also value is definitely not "entirely dependent on the utility gained from that product." Firstly, many products do not have clear "utilities." The fact that most gain no "utility" from the Mona Lisa or Van Gogh''s self-portrait does not negate their substantial values. Also if utility derived were the sole determinant for value, then there would be no need to compare a product to another product to determine it...which you yourself said was necessary. So watch your contradictions.

3. Cost relative to similar service: Although you agree that this is important, you never say this isn't objective or why it isn't (although it is)...which was the whole point of your argument. So lets agree it is objective. And again, as I have shown before (and will below), value's dependency on comparison--among other things--does not make it entirely "relative"...no matter how many times you (without support) say it does.

But I must add that all value is comparative or "relative" to other values, but that does not make each entirely relative or free from objective facts. Making relative comparisons of the value of a 2013 Lamborghini Huracan to a 1976 Gremlin does not change the objective facts of the cars' respective horse powers or steering capabilities, which usually factor in such comparisons.

The value of horse power and steering capability is dependent on the utility of having such features in a car. The ability to go fast and stay in control in a Lambo only has value because we like to go fast and stay in control. I might place a greater value on the '76 Gremlin because I worship Wayne & Garth and, well... I couldn't find a Pacer.

Now here you significantly misread my correct argument, which was that you can't compare the values of two products without referencing the objective realities of those products. I never said that the respective horse powers or steering capabilities of the two cars determined the values by themselves, or that the utilities of those features were irrelevant. I accurately posited them as objective facts both independent of personal preference--such as "liking to go fast and stay in control"--and significant to most debates on their value...you cannot effectively compare the values of two cars' respective horsepower without referencing their objectively existing engines

You, however, keep insisting on the necessity of comparing a product to another product to determine value, while insisting you can do so without referencing objective realities, which you deem irrelevant. If you truly believe that is possible, you (again) need to show you can do so...perhaps with the 76 Gremlin and '13 Huracan.

I appreciate the initial agreement, Mike. However, both your agreement and your amendment following it directly counter your assertion in your previous post that value is "solely up to the individual." First of all, when you "assume" that others will know what you mean, you are acknowledging that there are shared objective realities outside your two perspectives that could give those perspectives commonality. Secondly, you cannot--as I showed in my Gremlin/Lamboghini comparison--compare the value of two products to each other without referencing the objective facts of (and significant to) those products.

Yes, people have shared objectives. They are often known but there aren't any guarantees. If I'm in a group of baseball fanatics who also like playing games (say, my fantasy baseball league mates), then I would, and did, propose that they give SOM a shot since I assume they will place a relatively high value on the product. I did not make that recommendation to my extended family. Shared culture, shared history, and shared interests lead to shared values. However, are you are saying that commonality of preferences amongst groups of people are objective realities? If so, I think that's a pretty thin argument to stand on and subject to the shifting sands of culture.

Firstly, shared objective realities does not refer to "shared objectives"--come on, Mike--it refers to shared realities that are objective. You yourself depended on those shared realities when you chose to offer SOM to your league mates but not your family. And, no, i never said commonality of preferences were objective realities in themselves. I accurately said commonality of preferences contain, and are dependent on objective realities. Two people's shared preferences for Heavy Metal depend on both the objective existence of Metallica, Slayer, Pantera et al., as well as the non-relative objective realities of the genre--such as power chords and emphatic rhythms.

You yourself give a perfect example of commonality of preferences dependent on objectivity with "shared culture". For example, Cajun culture is marked by shared preferences for gumbo, crawdads, and music with fiddles...which are all integral objective realities

So, if you truly believe commonality of preferences can exist independent of objective realities, you need to show me such a commonality without them.


Anyway, back to our Redscape league, and tonight's battle of the Spartans vs. the Persians, with my depleted team definitely playing the Spartan role...and Tyler Colvin doing his best impression of Leonidas...

To put it simply, online strat, for what it offers, that is the service of playing with a team, drafting, trading, updating stats, allowing u to manage the line ups pitching and baserunning,for at least 54 or more days is a good value in itself for 20.00. 37 cents a day to do this is objectively and empirically a good deal in itself for anyone is what Jason is saying. Correct? because c'mon its 37 cents a day for all that service right? Pretty much anything that is offered at only 37 cents a day is a good deal automatically.

Then if you want to see if it is a good value by comparison, just to make sure, then find something that offers a comparable service for the same price, and if you can't because everything else is more expensive, then obviously strat is a good value.

this is what Jason is saying (hopefully I got it right this time).

My argument is that "good value" has a similar but a bit different definition than what Jason defines it as. Jason argues that the personal is of no merit when speaking of good value. I argue differently. Because, when you go back to the beginning of this post, where DeViLzzz started it by saying online strat was too expensive, I posted that I agreed because you can purchase the cdrom game, and the cards for about 100.00 and play it as often as you want, which is of a better value than playing 5 teams of online strat.

Jason then argued that online strat is a different animal than the cdrom game in that you get to manage a team on a daily basis, he goes on to say:

"Online-strat is a different animal from the board game or the CD-Rom game; it provides a different service and different source of entertainment that those two strat modes can't. It allows you to draft a team against 11 (or 23 or 6) other managers (from different US states), organize that team through provided salaries and salary caps, and then compete against those other managers every night as you continually manage your team through strategy and general manage it through transactions. So, while On-line Strat does have less game-play control than the other Strat modes, it more than makes up for that by providing these particular gaming aspects, as well as the service of facilitating daily game play that would be impossible otherwise to most of us working Strat players."

I took this as a change in the discussion, where I argued on time spent playing the game (CDrom allows unlimited amount of time spent, online strat is limited) so I brought back the conversation to a subject of time, meaning a "good value" involves the amount of time spent playing strat, by saying that after you draft a team and set up the way it will be played, you spend 10min a night checking on how u did and making minor adjustments, and 10 min. per night for 20.00 a team is expensive.

This is where the discussion went in different directions. Jason argued that time has no relevance in a discussion of "good value" because it is a personal thing not an objective thing. One person might spend 10min, but it doesn't negate the objective reality that for the service that online strat provides for 20.00 it is a "good value" Jason with this statement derailed the whole discussion, and I tried to bring him back in what was originally being discussed. But as my arguments involved time spent, and time is a personal value rather than a objective "good value" I could never get him back on track.

Jason thinks that for the service provided by online strat for the price of 20.00 it is a good value. And if you want to change his mind on it, then you must argue on that basis alone. Show how online strat is not a good value for the services it provides. It doesn't involve personal opinion or personal ideas of time, just argue on the fact that for all the service online strat provides, is 20.00 a good value?

It is an interesting argument. But it wasn't what was discussed originally. At the beginning I argued that it wasn't a good deal because of the amount of time spent. Whether time is of a personal rather than objective idea, it is what was discussed originally.

In other words, if one wants to argue that strat is a good deal or not a good deal based solely on objective facts that strat provides a service for 20.00, then that is a good discussion. But if one starts an argument based on time and personal ideas of good value, which is what was originally argued by me at the beginning, then negating the time factor negates the argument.

In other words, instead of showing that strat is a good deal objectively only on the fact of the service provided for the 20.00, argue why even if 10 minutes is spent per day on it for 20.00 is still a good deal. Because the 10 minutes spent isn't as personal as Jason likes to think. Objectively speaking, if you have a team, it doesn't take you more than that amount of time to set up your team each night for a new series and look over the box scores and details for the previous nights games. And 10 minutes a night for 20.00 is expensive. That is why most online strat players play with more than one team at a time.

Because time is an objective factor whether Jason thinks it is or not. A plumbing company can provide me a service that will fix any and all plumbing problems that occur at my house for 1000 dollars a year, but if I and all others only use the service once per year for 4 hours, then whether or not the plumbing company has all the talent and equipment to do the job, it's still an expensive deal.

I argued Jason's good value point without time involved, stating that most other online games are provided for free with advertising paying for the service, and that newspapers provide as good of a service for a similar price. Now let's see if an argument can be made that strat is good deal when you spend only 10min per night using the services provided at a cost of 20.00 a team.

Of course this argument becomes moot if online strat players look at the shortness of time spent as a benefit.

Scott.

If two games were played each night instead of three and you still spent 10 minutes a night "engaging" with the game, then, the argument that the game would be a 50% improvement in value because the season would be 80 days long instead of 54 days long doesn't hold water for me.

So equating value with time spent is a shaky proposition.